Russian Economy General News: #8

Austin wrote:Kudrin estimated the damage to Russia from the militarized budget

Redistribution of expenses would increase the economy in 20-30 years by almost a quarter

The economy would already grow faster today, if the expenses of the entire state in 2011-2017. were distributed more efficiently, according to the article of the chairman of the Center for Strategic Research (CSR) Alexei Kudrin and director of the Center for International Trade Studies of the Russian Academy of Science and Technology Alexander Knobel.

Expenditure on education for this period decreased from 3.7% to 3.5% of GDP, for health and sports - from 3.5% to 3.3%, for security and law enforcement from 2.5% to 2.3%. But the defense grew from 2.5 to 3.1% of GDP, especially in 2014-2016: from 3.2 to 4.4%. According to the authors of the article, such a redistribution of costs annually deprives the economy of 0.3 pp growth rates.

In early September, Kudrin published an article that revealed part of Russia's development strategy until 2024, presented by the CSR to President Vladimir Putin. The key proposal is a budget maneuver: to increase spending on education, healthcare, road construction and transportation by 0.9%, 0.7% and 0.9%, respectively, while cutting spending on security forces (by 0.5%) and defense (by 0 , 3%). Such a maneuver Kudrin proposed back in 2011 in the strategy 2020. And if it was undertaken even then, for 5-7 years, an additional contribution to the growth rate of the economy would be 0.4 pp, for 10-15 years - 0.8 pp, and for 20-30 years this would increase GDP by 20-25%. This is the minimum provided only by the redistribution of costs, without reforms and increasing the effectiveness of institutions, explains Knobel.

Shut up Kudrin.

You had your seat at the head of the table. You did an alright job. Not great, not terrible, but alright. Yet here you're billing yourself off as some kind of oracle WTF.

Russia has moved on from you and your policies.

Investing into military procurement for Russia is a great means by which to drive industrial and high-tech growth. At this point in time. No-one says they're going to do it this way forever. The point is to use it as a boost, a stimulus.

Those same Almaz-Anteys, OmskTransMashes, etc... have all been given the task of deriving at least half their profits from sales to the civilian market by 2020-2025. And some have nearly achieved it already. While others are still in the process. But what I can say is that none of them would have had a chance of achieving it were it not for the massive amount of government orders that allowed them to invest into modernization and R&D of new products and technologies.

The shipyards that have been building the Admiral Grigoroviches, Steregushchys, Buyan-Ms, minesweepers, coast guard ships, logistics vessels and military tugboats are now going onto producing fishing trawlers, civilian icebreakers, oil rig platforms, tankers and even luxury yachts; many of these with an eye for the export-market in the medium-term. And none of this would have been possible without the Navy's orders over the last 6-7 years, and that time & money they spent regaining experience, taking on and training a new generation of personnel and modernizing their equipment.

Where did the Sukhoi Superjet come from? The MS-21? The prospective Ka-62 for the civilian market?They all came from the same military design bureaus and factories (Sukhoi, Irkut, Kamov, etc...). True those enterprises were doing okay even without the military's orders, and got a head-start on civilian production well ahead of the others - but still, more money invested into them over the past 5 years through placing orders, has given further dividends in terms of their civilian production too.

According to the speaker, if you do not set yourself ambitious tasks, then there will be nothing to strive for. She noted that the development forecast is sluggish and can, of course, remain so. "Well, not for this time, not for Russia, not for you, as for the young minister,but after numerous discussions on Russia's strategic development program, it would be desirable to make command decisions by people who are ready to take responsibility for such decisions. in this regard, a great hope for you, and if you continue to move in the same way, interest in the Ministry of Economics will all lose, "- warned Matvienko.

She noted that it is important not only to ascertain the growth rates, but also to say what real measures will be taken to ensure that they are "at least 1.5-2 times higher." "You have to work on this, collect the egghead team, take an ambitious program, you realize it, this is already awaiting the society." We have some ministers, I will not call them, they think they are ministers of the Garden Ring. a great country like Russia, without attentive to the issues of economic development of each region, which has its own specifics, its problems, but also its potential, there will not be such a cumulative effect of the country's economic development, " said.

"According to our estimates, in order for the Russian economy to reach the growth rates above the world average compared to the level of 2016, we need to add about 5 trillion rubles of additional investment each year," Oreshkin said.

Beautiful mind. If press is not distorting his words out of context he is just beautiful mind talking cheap sht having no clue how to make economy run faster besides dancing rainmakers dance hoping for ancient gods of investment to bring money and technologies. Chubais no 2? WTF

flamming_python wrote:It's funny because the latest news is that Saudi Arabia is planning to invest into among other things - Russian toll roads/highways, a stake in St. Petersburg airport, business/commercial complexes and a hydroelectric power plant. Smart Russians

The other deals are investment funds, Saudi participation in a 2nd LNG project in the Russian Arctic (the 1st being the Yamal LNG project that is just coming online), logistics, and also interestingly enough - the construction of a petrochemical plant in Saudi Arabia with the participation of Sibur (Russia's top petrochemical company), and negotiations over Rosatom building a nuclear power plant in Saudi Arabia. And these things aren't exactly short-term projects that are easy to cancel.. you cancel the construction of an NPP and you will have to pay a lot of damages, and will have wasted years of time and plenty of money aside from that too.

and who said Syria is only about spending taxpayers' money? This might also help UAE to finance Yak-141 and Iran to be nice while asking for new passenger planes

Kudrin wasn't even a good economic minister. He invested nothing into Russia. For all his talk, he could do done the same thing decade ago, but he didn't. It became evident of his weak economic policy back in 2008 and I think most with authorities realise that. He just gets media attention still because he is proclaimed to be the greatest economic minister and other garbage. Even though he was econ minister during oils high prices.

None of the guys are providing any plans for economic development. They pull statistics out of thin air but none of them provide any plan in writing of how they plan to achieve their results.

I think the Russian authorities are fully aware of this. Have you noticed the only ones pushing the economic development is the military folks (Shoigu as example) for dual technologies development. Putin with his demands in changes, PM Medvedev (critic of Kudrin) and pretty much everyone outside of economic ministry. I think the Russian government is hoping to keep showcasing the economic ministries incompetence and hope they get free reign later to get rid of these people. Kudrins placement was to put him somewhere to quell the liberal idiots and to put him somewhere were he can't do damage but thinks he has some say.

miketheterrible wrote:Kudrin wasn't even a good economic minister. He invested nothing into Russia. For all his talk, he could do done the same thing decade ago, but he didn't. It became evident of his weak economic policy back in 2008 and I think most with authorities realise that. He just gets media attention still because he is proclaimed to be the greatest economic minister and other garbage. Even though he was econ minister during oils high prices.

None of the guys are providing any plans for economic development. They pull statistics out of thin air but none of them provide any plan in writing of how they plan to achieve their results.

I think the Russian authorities are fully aware of this. Have you noticed the only ones pushing the economic development is the military folks (Shoigu as example) for dual technologies development. Putin with his demands in changes, PM Medvedev (critic of Kudrin) and pretty much everyone outside of economic ministry. I think the Russian government is hoping to keep showcasing the economic ministries incompetence and hope they get free reign later to get rid of these people. Kudrins placement was to put him somewhere to quell the liberal idiots and to put him somewhere were he can't do damage but thinks he has some say.

I started following the economy in Russia closely in 2000. German Greff is really the central figure for doing the right job at the righttime during the early 2000s. Kudrin is a total nobody. The same story goes for the head of the CBR. The right individual was incharge for most of the 2000s. Nabiullina was a day late and a dollar short but gets ridiculous amounts of praise. If she was in chargeduring the 2000s, Russia's recovery would have been f*cked.

"According to our estimates, in order for the Russian economy to reach the growth rates above the world average compared to the level of 2016, we need to add about 5 trillion rubles of additional investment each year," Oreshkin said.

Beautiful mind. If press is not distorting his words out of context he is just beautiful mind talking cheap sht having no clue how to make economy run faster besides dancing rainmakers dance hoping for ancient gods of investment to bring money and technologies. Chubais no 2? WTF

Oh.. an extra 5 billion roubles per year - is that all Mr. Oreshkin?

But of course. Let me just reach into my bag of endless gold. I'm sure it was lying around here somewhere..

Or maybe you can just do the job with what we have, not what we don't? Somehow other countries manage growth rates at or above the world average. Countries with a lot less of everything than what Russia has, countries that can't even dream of the resources that you have at your disposal, Mr. Oreshkin.And you will do better than just the world average too. At least 1.5% better; else the Chinese will be living better than us within 10 years. You overfed tapeworm.

The head of the Ministry of Finance told about the danger of dragging defense spending

https://ria.ru/economy/20171006/1506356604.html

"As a rule, defense spending is not of a productive nature, unlike other sectors of the economy.As we say, we will make a tank, but on it you will not be able to plow and bring an additional product." He does not bring any additional GDP, "Siluanov said with a lecture "Budget as an instrument of economic growth" before students of the Financial University under the government.

The Minister cited as an example the problems faced by the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, when the budget was carried away by large defense expenditures. "When this was added to the decline in oil prices - and we saw what this led to. There was a disintegration of the state," Siluanov said.Underestimation of the budget, its impact on the business climate, the entire economic situation in the country, he said, can lead to serious consequences for the state.

He also recalled that in 1998 Russia was in default, because the authorities allowed excessive growth of the budget deficit and were carried away by borrowing in huge volumes. The next crisis - already in 2008, according to the head of the Ministry of Finance, also happened because of imprudent budget policy. "They collected obligations (budget - Ed.) At a price (oil - ed.) $ 100 per barrel, it fell - and now, the consequences for the financial markets, for the currency, for each person it was sensitive," he said.

"There would be another - a conservative, realistic approach to the expenditure of the state, or to the structure of these spending, there would not be such a situation," the Finance Minister is sure.

The head of the Ministry of Finance told about the danger of dragging defense spending

https://ria.ru/economy/20171006/1506356604.html

"As a rule, defense spending is not of a productive nature, unlike other sectors of the economy.As we say, we will make a tank, but on it you will not be able to plow and bring an additional product." He does not bring any additional GDP, "Siluanov said with a lecture "Budget as an instrument of economic growth" before students of the Financial University under the government.

The Minister cited as an example the problems faced by the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, when the budget was carried away by large defense expenditures. "When this was added to the decline in oil prices - and we saw what this led to. There was a disintegration of the state," Siluanov said.Underestimation of the budget, its impact on the business climate, the entire economic situation in the country, he said, can lead to serious consequences for the state.

He also recalled that in 1998 Russia was in default, because the authorities allowed excessive growth of the budget deficit and were carried away by borrowing in huge volumes. The next crisis - already in 2008, according to the head of the Ministry of Finance, also happened because of imprudent budget policy. "They collected obligations (budget - Ed.) At a price (oil - ed.) $ 100 per barrel, it fell - and now, the consequences for the financial markets, for the currency, for each person it was sensitive," he said.

"There would be another - a conservative, realistic approach to the expenditure of the state, or to the structure of these spending, there would not be such a situation," the Finance Minister is sure.

РИА Новости https://ria.ru/economy/20171006/1506356604.html

What a collection of revisionist pap and outright nonsense. The 1998 default was due to the collapse of the GKO (analogue of US treasury bills) pyramid that was propping up the ruble exchange. At one point the interest offered by the GKO was 120%. This is ludicrous as such billsusually have next to zero interest returns. Once the exchange rate started to collapse (from 1:6 to 1:83 dollar:ruble) the foreign dollarloans could no longer be supported. Clearly this has nothing to do with any government spending and budget deficit.

This idiot also does not understand how the macro-economy works. Spending money is what drives the GDP. Even if the tank doesnothing to generate additional revenue, money will have been spent to build it. That money flow generates GDP. I bet this idiot thinksthat austerity can never reduce the GDP and is one of those retards that believes cutting government spending is going to stimulateeconomic growth. He just won't tell us how this magic will happen. Removing government spending will automatically reduce theGDP since leaving the money in the pockets of businesses and individuals does not imply that they will

1) spend the money at the same rate (i.e. they could sit on the money for much longer)

2) spend the money in a manner which grows the domestic economy. For example, buying T-14 tanks grows Russia's GDP but buying foreign goods and services will shrink Russia's GDP unless those goods and services are used to generate domestic economic activity. Most individuals do not buy foreign machinery to run local production. They buy consumer junk.

As was noted before the Ministry of Finance is infested with monetarist maggots.

I forgot to add that Yeltsin was following monetarist policies up until the 1998 default. So this Ministry of Finance monetaristis trying to spin history to make his dogma look good.

https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/

There is a massive amount of revisionism being peddled by the liberasts 5th column in Russia today about the Yeltsin years.According to Navalny, chief of the liberast lemmings, the man who would be king of Russia, the Yeltsin years were free andwonderful. But Putin brought oppression and misery. Anyone who swallows this pap needs a brain transplant. The Yeltsinyears were freedom for gangsters and hard prison time for citizens trying to survive.

For example, stealing a loaf of bread under Yeltsin mean that the offender would be sent to a penal colony as if they hadcommitted a major crime. The fact that the theft was driven by hunger and did not involve personal injury was not consideredas mitigating factors. Putin is the one who introduced real judicial reform in Russia. Putin introduced jury trials and parole.He emptied over 200,000 people from Russian jails who were stuffed in by Yeltsin's criminal policies. Putin cracked down onthe gangsters while freeing the people from the terror of crime and economic collapse. F*ck Navalny and all the revisionistslime peddling their 5th column monetarist ideology.

When these economists makes these claims about defense spending does nothing for economy, if anyone actually throws counter arguments to them? I hear all these claims, but I never hear someone telling them they are wrong in the same forums. Why is that? I mean, it should be simple for someone from Rostec to come out and say: "well, you see, your wrong. Because we make (insert number here)% in profit per year in export of said weapons developed due to investment from government procurement of weapons. And while a tank isn't plowing a field, it defends our borders so someone else doesn't come in and take what our tractors plowed the fields or someone doesn't outright plow our own fields and take it all for themselves. Plus, we sold x amount of said tanks to 3rd parties which means that we earned X amount in profits which allowed us to increase our contribution to the GDP and tax revenue. With around $44B in exports of weapons, we earned X amount in GDP. As well, investing in the MiC has allowed hundreds of thousands of people work, who pay taxes and who buy general goods, which means more money circulating. As well, high tech companies who obtain government contracts for military procurement get money so they can find other devopment."

I seriously don't know why no one calls them out. Unless someone does and Media is hiding it. Which makes me believe the later. If house speaker is calling out on economic ministry, it sure sounds like people are starting to get really pissed off with these people.

Dreams come true - Gazprom took first place among the energy companies of the world in the rating of S & P Global Platts. But this is a joy with tears in my eyes. "The first issue" costs only $ 50 billion and loses by capitalization to four of its competitors from the top ten. The American corporation ExxonMobil is almost 7 times more expensive than the "national treasure". The reason for this underestimation in the "country" risks - investors do not believe in Russia, which fell under Western sanctions.

Yevgeny Koryukhin notes that Gazprom's proven gas reserves are worth more than $ 10 trillion (with an average gas price of $ 200 per 1 thousand cubic meters). For comparison, proven hydrocarbon reserves of Exxon Mobil (the world's largest oil company) are estimated at just over $ 1.2 trillion (with an average oil price of $ 50 per barrel).

"Russian companies are estimated to be lower than their colleagues from developed countries for a long time. Even at the domestic level, we are used to the fact that Apple costs eighteen Gazprom. But at the same time, Gazprom's EBITDA is only 1.5 times lower. Compare - costs 18 times cheaper, and EBITDA is only 1.5 times lower

The World Gold Council has reported that the Central Bank of Russia has more than doubled the pace of its gold purchases, bringing its reserves to the highest level since Putin took power 17 years ago.

Russia’s desire to break away from the hegemony of the U.S. dollar and the dollar payment system is well-known. Over 60% of global reserves and 80% of global payments are in dollars. The U.S. is the only country with veto power at the International Monetary Fund, the global lender of last resort.

Perhaps Russia’s most aggressive weapon in its war on dollars is gold. The first line of defense is to acquire physical gold, which cannot be frozen out of the international payments system or hacked.

With gold, you can always pay another country just by putting the gold on an airplane and shipping it to the counterparty. This is the 21st-century equivalent of how J.P. Morgan settled payments in gold by ship or railroad in the early 20th century.

Russia has now tripled its gold reserves from around 600 tonnes to 1,800 tonnes over the past 10 years and shows no signs of slowing down. Even when oil prices and Russian reserves were collapsing in 2015, Russia continued to acquire gold.

But Russia is pursuing other dollar alternatives besides gold.

For one, it’s been building nondollar payments systems with regional trading partners and China.

The U.S. uses its influence at SWIFT, the central nervous system of global money transfer message traffic, to cut off nations it considers to be threats.

From a financial perspective, this is like cutting off oxygen to a patient in the intensive care unit. Russia understands its vulnerability to U.S. domination and wants to reduce that vulnerability.

Now Russia has created an alternative to SWIFT.

The head of Russia’s central bank, Elvira Nabiullina, has reported to Vladimir Putin that “There was the threat of being shut out of SWIFT. We updated our transaction system, and if anything happens, all SWIFT-format operations will continue to work. We created an analogous system.”

Russia is also part of a reported Chinese plan to install a new international monetary order that excludes U.S. dollars. Under that plan, China could buy Russian oil with yuan and Russia could then exchange that yuan for gold on the Shanghai exchange.

Now it appears Russia has another weapon in its anti-dollar arsenal.

Russia’s development bank, VEB, and several Russian state ministries are reportedly teaming up to develop blockchain technology. They want to create a fully encrypted, distributed, inexpensive payments system that does not rely on Western banks, SWIFT or the U.S. to move money around.

This has nothing to do with bitcoin, which is just another digital token. The blockchain technology (now often referred to as distributed ledger technology, or DLT) is a platform that can facilitate a wide variety of transfers — possibly including a new Russian-state cryptocurrency backed by gold.

“Putin coins,” anyone?

The ultimate loser here will be the dollar. That’s one more reason for investors to allocate part of their portfolios to assets such as gold.

When these economists makes these claims about defense spending does nothing for economy, if anyone actually throws counter arguments to them? I hear all these claims, but I never hear someone telling them they are wrong in the same forums. Why is that? I mean, it should be simple for someone from Rostec to come out and say: "well, you see, your wrong. Because we make (insert number here)% in profit per year in export of said weapons developed due to investment from government procurement of weapons. And while a tank isn't plowing a field, it defends our borders so someone else doesn't come in and take what our tractors plowed the fields or someone doesn't outright plow our own fields and take it all for themselves. Plus, we sold x amount of said tanks to 3rd parties which means that we earned X amount in profits which allowed us to increase our contribution to the GDP and tax revenue. With around $44B in exports of weapons, we earned X amount in GDP. As well, investing in the MiC has allowed hundreds of thousands of people work, who pay taxes and who buy general goods, which means more money circulating. As well, high tech companies who obtain government contracts for military procurement get money so they can find other devopment."

I seriously don't know why no one calls them out. Unless someone does and Media is hiding it. Which makes me believe the later. If house speaker is calling out on economic ministry, it sure sounds like people are starting to get really pissed off with these people.

These economist are paid by big banks and companies.

They claim that the main purpose of the government is to make everything more efficient.

However, actually the people created the government to serve the interest of everyone, not only the rich/big corporations/banks.

Difference is :case A ,the government simply a provider of non privatise-able services: The government has to balance the budget, target of the government is to decrease the income of itself and privatise as many function as possible. The government has to join international trade organisations, and all trade / market / job related barrier and regulation has to be erased. Unemployment, general well - being of the average voters is NOT the business of the government.

Case B , the government is responsible for the well being of the voters :The target of the government is to increase the well being of its citizens, the budget balance , trade agreements and so on only matter if it can helps the voters.

Tingsay wrote:Minister compares current situation in Russian economy with US economy in 1980s

According to the Russian economic development minister, the general level of the debt burden in the Russian economy is rather low

http://tass.com/economy/966405

American bank lending rates dropped dramatically from their 1981 recession highs by the middle 1980s. If this minister wantsto be taken seriously, then he should have Nabiullina shot and similar rates set by the CBR.

In late October, State Duma deputies plan to consider the draft federal budget submitted by the government for 2018 and for the planned period of 2019 and 2020. What indicators are laid in the main financial document of the country, where do the revenues come from and how are they planned to be distributed - in the infographics of Kommersant.

The Russian government assumes that the country's GDP will grow from 97.5 trillion in 2018 to 110.2 trillion rubles. in the year 2020 . At the same time, by the end of 2016, Russia's GDP contracted by 0.2% to 86 trillion rubles.

The budget for 2018 is planned based on the price of $ 43.8 per barrel of Russian export oil Urals. For 2019-2020 the average price is planned at $ 41.6-42.4 . At the end of September this year, the price per barrel of Urals oil reached $ 59, in early October it dropped to $ 55. Inflation for the entire planning period is expected at 4% .

According to last year's draft of the federal budget, in 2018 revenues should reach 14.03 trillion rubles, but in the new bill, the amount is 15.26 trillion rubles. At the same time, budget expenditures increased by 489 billion rubles. and make up 16.53 trillion rubles.

According to the project, 35.9% of revenues in 2018 will come on oil and gas revenues (tax on mining and export duties). In 2019-2020, this figure is expected at the level of 33.4-33.7%. According to estimates, oil and gas revenues will total 39.4% by the end of 2017

As in previous years, the most costly item of the budget remains social policy (28.5% of expenditure), most of which is pensions. The "defense" in 2018 plan to spend 2.77 trillion (in 2017 - 2.84 trillion rubles). The third most important budget expenditure item is the national economy (2.4 trillion rubles), where about half is spent on road maintenance, transport and fuel and energy. In general, compared with the budget for 2017, the first nine budget items by the number of allocated funds remained at the same positions.

Over the past five years , the budget expenditures for articles "social policy", "national defense" and "national economy" have grown most strongly in absolute value . In terms of percentage, environmental protection expenditures grew most strongly (by 271%), public debt servicing (129%) and general state issues (54%). Reduced costs for housing (29%), gymnastics and sports (13%), health care (8%), culture and formation (1%).

How to raise excises and duties

According to the draft budget, from July 1, 2018, the excise tax rate for cigarettes will be 1,718 rubles. for 1 thousand pieces, and from January 1, 2020 - 1966 rubles. for 1 thousand pieces. Under the government's plan, the growth of excise taxes on cigarettes and cigarettes will bring to the budget in 2018 20.8 billion rubles, in 2019 - 60.5 billion rubles, and in 2020 - 17.7 billion rubles.

From January 1, 2020, the excise tax rate for alcohol stronger than 9% is 544 rubles. for 1 liter (now - 523 rubles.), and up to 9% inclusive - 435 rubles. for 1 liter. The wine is set at a rate of 19 rubles. for 1 liter (now - 18 rubles.), for ethyl alcohol - 111 rubles. for 1 liter against the current 107 rubles. for 1 liter.

From January 1, 2020, there is also an indexation of the excise rate on cars : with an engine capacity of over 90 liters. with and up to 150 liters. with a rate of 49 rubles. for 1 liter. with., with a capacity of more than 150 liters. with .- 472 rubles. for 1 liter. from. There is also an introduction from 2018 of a differentiated scale of excises for cars with a capacity of more than 200 liters. from.

From January 1, 2018, it is planned to increase excise rates for motor gasoline and diesel fuel by 50 kopecks. per 1 liter, and from July 1, 2018 - to increase another 50 kopecks.

The draft budget also envisages a reduction in the threshold for duty-free importation of goods by individuals from € 1 thousand to € 20 since July 2018 , however, according to the latest announcements of the Ministry of Finance, the decision has not yet been taken.

Also provides for raising the rates of payment for use of forests to 2.17 times in 2018 to 2.38 times in 2019, 2.62 times in 2020 (per unit of volume of wood).

The utilization rate for wheeled and self-propelled vehicles, as well as trailers to them, is planned to be indexed by 15%.

From January 1, 2019, it is planned to introduce an investment charge in the seaports of the Russian Federation at the level of 25% of the existing port dues.

In addition, a 25% increase in the size of one-time and annual fees for the use of the radio-frequency spectrum is planned .